Good, but... | A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (The University Center for Human...

A unique and fascinating foray in the controversial area of constitutional interpretation: | A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (The University Center for Human Values Series) | Antonin Scalia

books:


	• A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law (The University Center for Human Values Series) Antonin Scalia Princeton University Press, 1998 - 176 pages average customer review:based on 35 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Not as incisive or insightful as I expected

Frankly, I was disappointed in the depth of insight and reflection offered in this book. This little volume is essentially a recapitulation of a narrow and shallow view of Constitutional Law and exegesis of the US Constitution that lacks a unifying logic or point of view that underlies it. And, I found him disingenuous in that he adopts a literalist position while knowing full well that no such position is possible in reading documents more complex and abstract than simple assembly instructions. His responses to the criticisms of Dworkin, Glendon, Tribe and Wood were frequently glib and self-indulgent, even self-congratulatory. Contrast this work with Justice Breyer's Active Liberty.

for more information click here

Good, but...

First of all, let me make it clear that I think Scalia is a brilliant Justice. I have a very high level of respect for him intellectually. However, I think that he is too conservative, as is this book. I still think people should read it, because I advocate hearing all sides of an argument, but I thoroughley disagree with Scalia's opinions.

Be that as it may, everyone should sill read this insightful and interesting book, if for no other reason than the debate that takes place at the end of the book.

A unique and fascinating foray in the controversial area of constitutional interpretation:

This is an excellent book that provides valuable insight into understanding the modern controversy and problem of construing the American Constitution. Unique in that Justice Scalia graciously provides his theory first. He is then rebutted in different ways by university scholars in very varied manner. Each rebuttal is quite unique and interesting in its own right. Fascinating in that Scalia also provides responses to each rebuttal at the end of the book.

The format is very educational and enlightening and it's remarkable that a sitting Justice of the Supreme Court would provide such candid and unapologetic theory of interpretation, knowing that his views would face challenging if not scathing attack by some very important scholars on the topic.

The only thing that would have made this book more interesting is a discussion, or forward describing just how this process of argument, response and rebuttal was organized. Just how did these authors get together to create such an honest discussion of what are, in some cases, very polar views on the issue of interpretation. That's why I gave it four stars. But I loved it.

I would caution that some of the writing is technical both legally and philosophically. Legally in that some discussion referring to the doctrine of incorporation seem to be assumed understood. Philosophically in that Dworkin's discussion of "meaning" and "intention" could be daunting though I think he does a beautiful job of simplifying and clarifying what are often considered some of the most complex philosophical issues of the 20th Century.

Very well done. Very appreciated work. I was fascinated and thoroughly enjoyed the format of argument, counterargument and response.

for more information click here

A Lot of Strong Points With a Few Frustrations

I think the largest challenge facing Scalia was turning his simple philosophy into an entire book.

When interpreting the constitution we should look at its original meaning.

There it is in 11 words. Scalia manages to expound on his theory a little bit by differentiating it from strict textualism and reinforcing his views here and there. Scalia allows several scholars to give their replies followed by Scalia's rebuttals. This back-and-forth provides an engaging read and expands the simple premise into a full-length, comprehensive read. All in all I enjoyed this book.

I feel compelled to warn potential readers that from time to time this book will sink into the worst of academia. That pseudo-intellectual, acting smart for the sake of sounding smart mentality that plagues universities across the country. These lapses are usually brief and do not greatly detract from what is otherwise a great book on an important debate currently occuring within the highest court in America.

I also recommend you read Active Liberty by Justice Breyer. I have nothing against Tribe, Dworkin or the other respondents in this book, but Breyer takes the discussion out of originalism and into his own philosophy.

for more information click here

We are all familiar with the image of the immensely clever judge who discerns the best rule of common law for the case at hand. According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a judge like this can maneuver through earlier cases to achieve the desired aim--"distinguishing one prior case on his left, straight-arming another one on his right, high-stepping away from another precedent about to tackle him from the rear, until (bravo!) he reaches the goal--good law." But is this common-law mindset, which is appropriate in its place, suitable also in statutory and constitutional interpretation? In a witty and trenchant essay, Justice Scalia answers this question with a resounding negative.

In exploring the neglected art of statutory interpretation, Scalia urges that judges resist the temptation to use legislative intention and legislative history. In his view, it is incompatible with democratic government to allow the meaning of a statute to be determined by what the judges think the lawgivers meant rather than by what the legislature actually promulgated. Eschewing the judicial lawmaking that is the essence of common law, judges should interpret statutes and regulations by focusing on the text itself. Scalia then extends this principle to constitutional law. He proposes that we abandon the notion of an everchanging Constitution and pay attention to the Constitution's original meaning. Although not subscribing to the "strict constructionism" that would prevent applying the Constitution to modern circumstances, Scalia emphatically rejects the idea that judges can properly "smuggle" in new rights or deny old rights by using the Due Process Clause, for instance. In fact, such judicial discretion might lead to the destruction of the Bill of Rights if a majority of the judges ever wished to reach that most undesirable of goals.

This essay is followed by four commentaries by Professors Gordon Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon, and Ronald Dworkin, who engage Justice Scalia's ideas about judicial interpretation from varying standpoints.

for more information click here

reviews: page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

hot